• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Ban unrelated amendments?

Should adding non-related amendments to bills in Congress be banned?

  • yes

    Votes: 15 88.2%
  • no

    Votes: 1 5.9%
  • maybe

    Votes: 1 5.9%

  • Total voters
    17

Whovian

Banned
Joined
Oct 5, 2010
Messages
7,153
Reaction score
2,250
Location
dimensionally transcendental
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Conservative
Would you support an amendment banning all unrelated amendments from bills in Congress? Why or why not?
 
Re: Ban unrealted amendments?

If a MOD could please correct my spelling error in the thread description...

It should read Ban unrelated amendments, not unrealted. Thanks.
 
Re: Ban unrealted amendments?

I think more or less the problem with this is who gets to decide what's unrelated. Recently I believe the Dem's put a amendment in a defense appropriations bill that would allow illegal immigrants gain legal status with military service and a few other caveats. It is kinda sorta related but I'm thinking whether someone really thinks they're related will have to do with whether they are for or against the amendment, lol.

All in all I'd love to see something in place where unrelated amendments were banned, but I doubt anyone in congress would vote for a ban like that.
 
Re: Ban unrealted amendments?

Yes, however a lot less would get done. But I'm all for keeping politicians honest. I got pretty annoyed at how Democrats went on the media touting how some people voted against reforming DADT, when in reality there was a lot more in the bill.
 
Re: Ban unrealted amendments?

Sure, enforcement would be tricky due to the issues rough raised, though. A similar move that I think would improve the legislature and the legislation that comes out of it is breaking up the monster bills that are all too common on important issues. When you have mammoth bills like the patriot act or the healthcare bill that end up being all-or-nothing you get a ton more crap pushed through. As is you get huge swaths of law that nobody even debated because it wasn't important enough to either support or oppose the bill over. We'd get something closer to what the people actually want instead of a 1000-page monstrosity that represents whatever could be cobbled together to get enough votes on a one-off push
 
Re: Ban unrealted amendments?

Yes I would support such an amendment. I could care less if less gets done.
 
Would you support an amendment banning all unrelated amendments from bills in Congress? Why or why not?

No, as it is unenforceable. There is no obvious definition of what is "unrelated" and what isn't...and if there was such a definition, there would be a way to avoid it anyway.
 
Re: Ban unrealted amendments?


I disagree. Some bills (health care being a perfect example) NEED to be mammoth bills. Lots of smaller bills sound nice, but the problem is that they only work in tandem with one another. For example, most people think that it should be illegal for insurers to discriminate based on preexisting conditions. But in order for a ban on that to work, we would need a health insurance mandate to prevent people from waiting until they're sick to buy insurance. But if we did that, then we would need to subsidize health insurance for the poor. And if we did that, then we would need to raise taxes or cut spending somewhere else in order to pay for it.

Regardless of whether one is for or against the health care reform bill, I think it's pretty clear that it only made sense as a single bill, because the pieces wouldn't work individually.
 
Would you support an amendment banning all unrelated amendments from bills in Congress? Why or why not?

If you are of the opinion that nothing gets done now even with these amendments, then congress would just stagnate even further. Unrelated amendments are essentially how the government works now. I am willing to accept unrelated amendments if it means some type of progress occurs.
 
Re: Ban unrealted amendments?


Considering that the vast majority of the voters do not support Obamacare as passed, you appear to be in the minority here... but lets save that for the healthcare thread, shall we?
 
Re: Ban unrealted amendments?

Considering that the vast majority of the voters do not support Obamacare as passed, you appear to be in the minority here... but lets save that for the healthcare thread, shall we?

Yes, let's. Which is why I specifically said "regardless of whether you are for or against health care" and only cited it as an example of a bill that only makes sense as a giant single bill, rather than lots of smaller bills.
 
Re: Ban unrealted amendments?


I disagree. Any of the things you listed could be passed or rejected individually. Also, the bill does a great deal more than that. On the white house What's in the Health Care Bill page they list a dozen or so actions that were in the health care bill, any of which could have stood independant of any of the others. Why is it imperative that Congress go all-or-nothing on increased funding for community centers and private plans being required to provide free preventative care?


Of course there are many items in the bill that it makes sense to tie together, but saying that the entire thing needs to be one gigantic bill and that it wouldn't work divided into more manageable pieces is ludicrous.

The end result is that half of these items never entered into the debate at all. Not a bit. Maybe one or two of the items listed on the linked page were ever evaluated for merit. The rest had their fate tied entirely to the success or failure of the overarching plan for healthcare reform, no matter how unrelated they were to that overarching plan.
 
Re: Ban unrealted amendments?

I think unrelated amendments should be banned from bills. It's dishonest and not what democracy is about.
 
Re: Ban unrealted amendments?

Yes I would ban them. I would also make it required that each congressperson read fully the bill they are about to vote on.
 
A ban like that would happen after they eliminate paybacks to politians in the form of lobysts jobs after they retire from congress.

In another words it ain't gonna happen. The Reps and Dems have spent decades in developing this scam.
 
Re: Ban unrealted amendments?

Yes. If a bill can't be passed on its own merits, then it probably shouldn't be passed in the first place.
 
Cookies are required to use this site. You must accept them to continue using the site. Learn more…